lltt>ulllic Qf tbt ~bilippints

i;upttnre €ourt
:Blanila

EN BANC

MANUEL LOPEZ BASON, G.R. No. 262664

Petitioner,
Present:

GESMUNDO, C.J.,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-IAVIER,*
- versus - INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ,M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO **
'
MARQUEZ,
KHO,JR.,
SINGH,JJ
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the OFFICE OF Promulgated:
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,
Respondent. October 3, 2023

DECISION

INTING,J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule

45 of the Rules of Court filed by Manuel Lopez Bason (Bason) assailing

• On official business.
•• On official business.
1
Rollo, pp. 4-25.

f);
 .

Decision 2 G.R. No. 262664

the Decision2 dated April 13, 2021, and the Resolution 3 dated May 26,
2022, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 12682. The CA
granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) thereby dismissing the Orders4 dated November 29, 2018,
December 3, 2018, and January 23, 2019, (assailed Orders) of Branch 18,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Roxas City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-288-16
and C-289-16. The RTC previously granted Bason's plea bargaining
proposal 5 based on A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. 6

The Antecedents

Bason was charged with violation of Sections 57 and 11, 8 Article II

of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 9 The accusatory portions of the
Informations 10 read:

[Criminal Case No. C-288-16]

That on or about the 22 nd day of July 2016, in the City of Roxas,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [c]ourt, said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell,
deliver, and/or transport to POI JIOME CASABON a "poseur buyer",
one (I) transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drng, with a weight of 0.0769
grams (sic), without authority to sell, deliver and/or transport the same,
in consideration of the agreed sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS
(PS00.00), Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 11

[Criminal Case No. C-289-16]

That on or about the 22nd day of July, 2016, in the City of Roxas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [c]ourt, said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have
in his possession and control:

2 Id. at 31-42. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by
Associate Justices Lorenza Redulla Bordios and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr.
Id. at 45-49. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by
Associate Justices Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. and Jacinto G. Fajardo, Jr.
4 Id. at 58-61, 62-63, and 69. Penned by Presiding Judge Ignacio I. Alajar.
See Proposal for Plea Bargaining dated June 5, 2018, id. at 51-54.
6 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, approved on April I0, 2018.
7 Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
9 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved on June 7, 2002.
10 Rollo, pp. 32-33, CA Decision.
II /d.at32.
 -

Decision 3 G.R. No. 262664

(1) [to (3)] [three (3)] heat sealed transparent plastic

sachet contammg Methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug
marked as ["P-MB-2", "P-MB-3", and "P-
MB-4", respectively];

(4) [to (12)] [nine (9)] opened transparent plastic sachet

containing residue of Methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug
marked as ["P-MB-5", "P-MB-6", "P-MB-
7" "P-MB-8" "P-MB-9" "P-MB-10" "P-
' I", and "P-MB-12",
MB-I ' 'respectively];'

without being authorized by law to possess the same.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 12

Upon arraignment, Bason entered pleas of "Not Guilty" to the

charges for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 .13 Trial
ensued.

On June 5, 2018, Bason instead proposed to plead guilty to two (2)

counts of violation of Section 12, 14 Article II of the same law. 15

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City (OCP-Roxas City)

filed its Opposition 16 on the following grounds: (1) it has already rested
its case and it has a strong evidence against Bason; (2) under Department
of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 027, 17 Bason can only be
allowed to enter a plea of guilty from Section 5 to Section 11, Article II
of RA 9165; (3) the proposed plea bargain will render insignificant the
investigation and resolution of the case in court; and (4) there is probable
cause for the filing of two or three charges for violation of RA 9165
against Bason. 18

12 id. at 32-33.
13
id. at 33.
14 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs.
15 Rollo, p. 34.
16 Id. at 55-57. Signed by Associate City Prosecutor Ronald G. Asong and approved by City
Prosecutor Erwin D. Ignacio.
17 Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 Otherwise Known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002," DOJ Department Circular No. 27, Series of2018.
18
Rollo, pp. 55-56.

f(J
Decision 4 G.R. No. 262664

The RTC Rulings

On November 29, 2018, the RTC issued the Order 19 granting

Bason's plea bargaining proposal against the consent of the prosecution.
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Plea Bargaining

Proposal of MANUEL BASON y LOPEZ is GRANTED over the
objection of the Prosecution and the Court will allow the accused to
withdraw his previous plea of not guilty to the offenses charged and
substitute the same to a plea of guilty to offenses mentioned in the Plea
Bargaining Proposal.

SO ORDERED. 20

On Bason's re-arraignment on December 3, 2018, the RTC issued

an Order2 1 charging Bason with two (2) counts of violation of Section 12,
Article II of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the

accused Manuel Bason y Lopez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the following:

I. In Criminal Case No. C-288-16, for Violation of Section 12,

Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Two (2) Years and Four (4) months as
minimum, to Four (4) Years as maximum, and to pay a fine
of Ten Thousand (PI0,000.00) Pesos.

2. in Criminal Case No. C-289-16 - for Violation of Section

12, Article II ofR.A. No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Two (2) Years and Four (4) months as
minimum, to Four (4) Years as maximum, and to pay a fine
of Ten Thousand (PI0,000.00) Pesos.

xxxx

SO ORDERED. 22

The OCP-Roxas City filed a Motion for Reconsideration23 of the

Orders of the RTC dated November 29, 2018, and December 3, 2018. It
19
Id. at 58-6 I.
20
Id.at6l.
21 Id. at 62-63.
:z2 Id.
23
Id. at 64-68.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 262664

argued that the prosecution's consent or conformity was mandatory in the

approval of a plea bargaining proposal. 24 It argued that if the RTC's
findings support a conclusion that the guilt of Bason cannot be proven
beyond reasonable doubt, then the RTC should have dismissed the case
instead of granting the plea bargaining proposal. 25

On January 23, 2019, the RTC issued an Order2 6 denying the

prosecution's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

On behalf of the State, the OSG filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court imputing grave abuse of discretion on the
RTC for issuing the assailed Orders.

The CA Rulings

On April 13, 2021, the CA issued the Decision27 granting the

petition for certiorari. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the present petition

for certiorari is GRANTED. The Order dated November 29, 2018, the
Order dated December 3, 2018, and the Order dated January 23, 2019,
issued by respondent Judge Ignacio I. Alajar, Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Roxas City, in Criminal Cases
Nos. C-288-16, and C-289-16, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch I 8, Roxas City, is

ORDERED to proceed with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. C-288-16,
and C-289-16, with reasonable dispatch.

SO ORDERED. 28

" To bolster this argument, the OCP-Roxas City cited the case of Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo (816 Phil.
789 [2017]), Section 2 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, approved on April 25,
2017, and took effect on September 1, 2017).
25
Rollo, pp. 66-67.
26
/d.at69.
27
Id. at 31-42.
28
/d.at41.

f(l
 •

Decision 6 G.R. No. 262664

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration29 of Bason, the CA

denied 30 it for lack of any strong and compelling argument to warrant a
modification of its previous decision. 31

Hence the instant petition where Bason argues that: (I) the CA erred
when it ruled that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion when the
latter granted Bason's plea bargaining proposal despite the prosecution's
objection; (2) the CA erred when it ruled that a plea bargaining without
the consent of the prosecution is void, in contravention of A.M. No. 18-
03-16-SC; and (3) with the advent ofDOJ Department Circular No. 018, 32
the issue on the lack of consent in plea bargaining cases is now cured. 33

Issues

The issues raised before the Court are as follows:

1. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC committed grave

abuse of discretion in approving Bason's plea bargaining
proposal over the objection of the prosecution; and

2. Whether DOI Department Circular No. 018 cured the issue on

the lack of consent in plea bargaining cases.

Our Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The Court's Plea Bargaining

Framework in Drugs Cases
takes precedence over any DOJ
Department Circular or other
similar issuances regarding
plea bargaining in drugs cases.

29 Id. at 76-80.
30
Id. at 45-49.
31
Id at 49.
32
Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 Otherwise Known as
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", DOJ Department Circular No. 018, Series of
2022.
Rollo, pp. 11-12.

fµ
Decision 7 G.R. No. 262664

In the recent case of People v. Montierro 34 (Montierro), the Court

took judicial notice of DOJ Department Circular No. 018. It recognized
that the amendments introduced in DOJ Department Circular No. 018
reconciled the inconsistencies regarding the acceptable plea in DOJ
Department Circular No. 27 and the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework
in Drugs Cases for violation of Section 5, Article II ofRA 9165. As it now
stands, under the DOJ Circular and the Court-issued framework, the
acceptable plea for a violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is
Section 12, under the same Article. As such, the objection of the
prosecution on the ground that the proposed plea bargain is not allowed
or goes beyond the guidelines provided under DOJ Department Circular
No. 27 is rendered moot. 35

Moreover, in Montierro, the Court emphasized that its Plea

Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases takes precedence over DOJ
Department Circular No. 27, or any other similar issuance. It clarified that
any plea bargaining framework it promulgates is accorded primacy over
any internal guideline on the same matter that the DOJ may issue. 36

Plea bargaining requires the

consent of the parties, but
the approval thereof is subject
to the sound discretion of the
court.

In Montierro, the Court simplified that, as a rule, plea bargaining in

drugs cases requires the mutual agreement of the parties. If a plea
bargaining proposal is objected to by the prosecution based solely on the
ground that the accused's proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea
bargaining proposal under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, the
trial court may overrule the objection after determining that the plea
bargaining proposal circumscribes to the Court-issued framework on the
acceptable plea bargains and by the evidence and circumstances of each
case. 37

34 G.R. No. 254564, July 26, 2022. This case was consolidated with G.R. No. 254974 (Baldadera v.
People) and A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC (In Re: letter ofthe Philippine Judges Association Expressing
Its Concern: Over the Ramifications of the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R No. 250295).
35 Id.
36
Id.
37 Id.
 •

Decision 8 G.R. No. 262664

However, when the objection of the prosecution to the plea

bargaining proposal is valid and supported by evidence-to the effect that
(1) the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community
as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had
a relapse, or has been charged many times, or (2) the evidence of guilt is
strong-the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution's objection and
rule on the merits thereof. 38

In summary, the approval of the accused's plea of guilty to a lesser

offense is ultimately subject to the sound discretion of the court as its
discretion to act on a plea bargaining proposal is independent from the
requirement of mutual agreement of the parties. 39

Approval ofthe plea bargaining

proposal requires an evaluation
of the character of the accused
and the weight of the
prosecution's evidence.

In Montierro, the Court emphasized that the trial court should

ensure that any plea bargaining proposal is based on the Court-issued
framework and the evidence presented. 40 It is also necessary that the trial
courts particularly asce1iain if the accused is qualified to a plea bargain
taking into consideration the latter's character or if the evidence of guilt
is strong. 41 Concurrence of these conditions is not necessary as they
pertain to the accused's eligibility to plea bargain. The presence of any of
these conditions already disqualifies the accused from entering a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense. 42

Further, in cases where the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser

offense after the prosecution rested its case, the trial court can rule on its
propriety after assiduously studying the prosecution's evidence on record.
The trial court's acceptance of the defendant's change of plea only

38 Jd.
s, Id.
,o Id.
41 Id.
•12 Id.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 262664

becomes proper and regular if its ruling discloses the strength or weakness
of the prosecution's evidence. 43

In the case, the RTC in its Order44 dated November 29, 2018,
adjudged the weight of the evidence presented and ruled that the
prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized
items as the police officers committed procedural lapses, which cast doubt
on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the offense. 45

The RTC detailed the procedural lapses in the following excerpts

from its Order:

In the cases at hand, the [court] notes of the procedural lapses

committed by the Police Officers. As revealed by the Affidavit of
Arrest of POI Jiome Casabon, PO3 John Aleligay, Police Blotter
Report Excerpt, and Investigation Report, PO I Jiome Casabon brought
the seized drug related items to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory
Office at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City after the conclusion of the
inventory, and after the accused was physically examined and detained
at the Roxas City Police Station. Contrary to this sequence of events is
the testimony of PO 1 Jiome Casabon [which] x x x stated that after the
accused was brought to the Police Station, he took some rest at the safe
house of his team bringing with him the recovered items from Manuel
Bason. It was also revealed during his testimony that x x x he did not
proceed to the Crime Laboratory in Iloilo City and instead, he went to
their safe house at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning of July 22, 2016
and left the premises only after more than four (4) hours to bring the
items to the Crime Laboratory.

The inconsistency x x x created not only a missing link in the

chain of custody but also, when coupled with the lack of specifics on
how the seized drug related items were stored and preserved from the
time of its seizure until its delivery to the Crime Laboratory, created
doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items thereby
creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.

Finally, the [c]ourt also notes that despite the missing link in the
chain of custody, there is also nothing in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that shows the precautions undertaken to ensure
that the condition of the seized items was not altered and the lack of

43 Estipona. Jr. v. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789,817 (2017), citing Peoplev. Villarama, Jr., 285 Phil. 723,
731 (1992).
44
Rollo, pp. 58-6 l.
45
Id. at 38 and 60--61.
Decision G.R. No. 262664

opportunity for anyone not in the chain of custody to take possession

of the same.xx x. 46

Clearly, the RTC made an evaluation of the evidence. As a result of

this evaluation, it approved the plea bargaining proposal of Bason.

However, as discussed above, Montierro also requires that the

trial court make an evaluation of the character of the accused before it
approves the plea bargaining proposal. Particularly, the trial court shall
ensure that the accused is not (1) a recidivist, (2) a habitual offender, (3)
known in the community as a drug addict and troublemaker, (4) one who
has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, and (5) one who has been
charged many times. 47

Here, the records do not show that the RTC made an evaluation of
Bason's character. Hence, it should not have approved Bason's plea
bargaining proposal without this evaluation. As such, it is proper that the
case be remanded to the court of origin to make a determination on
whether Bason is qualified to avail of the benefits of plea bargaining based
on his character.

A drug dependency test is not a

pre-requisite for granting a plea
bargain.

An essential issue was raised before the Court in Montierro on the

matter of whether a drug dependency test is a pre-requisite for the
approval of a plea bargaining proposal. This issue proceeded from the
argument of petitioner Cypher Baldadera y Pelagio (Baldadera) in G.R.
No. 254974 that the Plea bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases neither
required a drug dependency test for plea bargaining nor made it a
condition sine qua non before the prosecution gives consent to a plea
bargain. 48

To address the issue, the Court in Montierro particularly issued the

following guidelines:

46
Id. at 60-61.
47 People v. lvfontierro, supra note 34.
48 Id.

(/I/(jJ
Decision 11 G.R. No. 262664

To summarize the foregoing discussion, the following

guidelines shall be observed in plea bargaining in drugs cases:

xxxx

3. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is

compliant with the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Framework
in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency
assessment be administered. If the accused admits drug use, or
denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then
he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of
not less than six ( 6) months. Said period shall be credited to
his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up
program if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found
negative for drug use/dependency, then he/she will be released on
time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail
minus the counselling period at rehabilitation center.

xx x x49 (Italics supplied)

As a result, the Court in Montierro directed the RTC therein to order

petitioners Baldadera and Erick Montierro y Ventocilla to undergo drug
dependency test pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. 50

As Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa noted,

Montierro essentially considers the conduct of a drug dependency test as
a condition precedent for an accused to avail himself of the plea
bargaining mechanism. However, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S.
Caguioa pointed out that a closer reading of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC
suggests that a drug dependency test is not a pre-requisite for plea
bargaining; in fact, it is to be conducted only after the approval of the plea
bargaining proposal.

To be clear, a drug dependency test is not a requirement for the

approval of a plea bargaining proposal. Based on the guidelines in
Montierro, the approval or denial of a plea bargaining proposal is
dependent primarily on the trial courts' exercise of its sound discretion
taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of
the accused as well the evidence present. 51 The requirement for a drug
dependency test becomes relevant as the trial courts are required to ensure
that, after the approval of the plea bargaining proposal, the applicant is
subjected to a drug dependency test to determine if treatment and
49 Id.
so Id.
si Id.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 262664

rehabilitation or counselling, as the case may be, is required as aptly

provided in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.

Moreover, to make a drug dependency test a requisite for the

approval of a plea bargaining runs counter with the purpose for which plea
bargaining was adopted in our jurisdiction. 52 As emphasized in Montierro,
the plea bargaining mechanism in criminal procedure is geared towards
achieving an efficient, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of a case. 53 As
pointed out by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier in her Opinion in
Montierro, requiring a drug dependency assessment early on in the
process will unnecessarily delay the disposition of the criminal case,
precisely as there is no available data on the waiting and processing period
for a drug dependency assessment. 54 As such, a prompt disposal of the
plea bargaining proposal is necessarily important to ensure that the
benefits of the mechanism as to the accused, insofar as early rehabilitation,
redemption, and reintegration to society is concerned, and to the State,
insofar as to the minimal use of resources, are achieved. 55

Clarificatory guidelines regarding

drug dependency test

Taking into consideration the foregoing discussion, the Court issues

the following clarificatory guidelines to guide trial courts in the
implementation of the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs
Cases.

1. A drug dependency test is not a precondition for the

approval of a plea bargaining proposal. The test is to be
conducted only after the trial court approves the plea
bargaining proposal of the accused to determine
whether he/she needs to be subjected to treatment and
rehabilitation or undergo a counselling program at a
rehabilitation center.

52 People v. Montierro, supra note 34, citing Estipona v. Lobrigo, supra note 43, at 813.
53 People v. Montierro, supra note 34.
54 See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Lazaro-Javier in People v. Montierro.
55 People v. Montierro, supra note 34, citing Estipona v. Lobrigo, supra note 43, at 812-813, further
citing the cases of Brady v. Unites States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 (I 970); Santohello v. New York, 404
U.S. 257,261 (1971); and Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 262664

2. After approval of the plea bargaining proposal, trial

courts shall be guided by the following:

a. In cases where the trial court approves a plea to the

lesser offense of violation of paragraph 3 of Section
11 or Section 12 of RA 9165:

1. If the accused admits drug use or denies it but is

found positive after a drug dependency test,
then he/she shall be ordered to undergo
treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not
less than six (6) months, and counselling, if
necessary.

11. If the accused is found negative for drug use or

drug dependency, then he/she shall undergo a
counselling program at a rehabilitation center.

111. In both cases, the time spent at the rehabilitation

center shall be credited as time served and shall
be deducted from the period of imprisonment.

1v. If the period of imprisonment has already been

served, the accused shall still be ordered to
undergo treatment and rehabilitation and/or
counselling, as the case may be, as part of the
rehabilitation and after-care/follow-up program.

b. In cases where the trial court approves a plea to a

lesser offense of violation of Section 15 of RA 9165:

1. If the accused admits drug use or denies it but is

found positive after a drug dependency test,
then he/she shall be ordered to undergo
treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not
less than six (6) months, and counselling, if
necessary.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 262664

11. If the accused is found negative for drug

use/dependency, then he/she shall be released
immediately but shall be ordered to undergo a
counselling program at a rehabilitation center.

c. The accused shall be subjected to the terms of

rehabilitation provided under Article VIII of RA
9165, as applicable.

Summary

To reiterate, in approving or denying plea bargaining proposals,

trial courts have the solemn duty and ultimate responsibility to determine
the applicant's entitlement thereto based on an evaluation of the latter's
character or an assessment of the strength or weakness of the
prosecution's evidence. The Court promulgated A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC to
provide trial courts with the framework to ascertain whether the proposal
to a lesser offense is aligned therein.

After approval of a plea bargaining proposal, trial courts shall then

require the conduct of a drug dependency assessment of the accused, not
as a condition sine qua non for the plea bargaining but instead to ensure
that the applicant undergoes treatment and rehabilitation or counselling, if
needed.

WHEREFORE, the Decjsion dated April 13, 2021, and the

Resolution dated May 26, 2022, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 12682 are SET ASIDE.

The case of petitioner Mamie! Lopez Bason is REMANDED to the

court of origin to determine whether petitioner is a recidivist, a habitual
offender, known in the community as a drug addict and troublemaker, has
undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many
times.

In case the trial court finds pet1t1oner Manuel Lopez Bason

qualified to avail himself of the benefits of plea bargaining, a drug
dependency assessment shall be conducted pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-
16-SC and the guidelines set forth herein.
 Decision 15 G.R. No. 262664

SO ORDERED.
/
HEN~UiNTING
Associate Ju ice

WE CONCUR:

AL S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice

LI _I . )
pffidat-btt'smess
uai:.TufuANoo . LAiARO-JAVIER
ssociate Justice
Associate Justice

RIC-'"'-...,_...,o R. ROSARIO
Associate Justice ssociate Justice

JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice
 Decision 16 G.R. No. 262664

. '- /
/

J~~~EZ
'---.____)Associate Justice

-----------:-, I
/ -L'.17_ ~~
~1A--.F1-EU1Vl£,J~A ,LJi;-Sl"N6¼l
/-11.;sociate Justice
/
/
/
/
/
V CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

AL~~
j ?7/1:1
~ustice